From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:26:52 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: Samsung: PWM: Allow to differentiate SoCs based on platform device name. In-Reply-To: References: <1731819.jJi37IsjvJ@flatron> <4002702.FticUbImag@flatron> <20110831124432.GF14976@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <001d01cc684e$9c49ecd0$d4ddc670$%kim@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Tomasz Figa wrote: > > 2011/8/31 Mark Brown : > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 02:34:15PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > >> This patch is a prerequisite to adding generic time support for S3C64xx. > >> It makes possible to differentiate SoCs, required to exclude timers 3 and 4 > >> from PWM driver only on S3C64xx. > > > > Now we have the cpu_is_foo() support for Samsung CPUs can we use that > > instead? > > > > Well, I thought about it, but I based my patches on latest stable sources and > cpu_is_s3c64xx wasn't there yet. Should I rebase them to Linus' tree? > > I'm not yet fully used to submitting patches here, so things like choosing the > base for patches are sometimes a bit confusing to me and I couldn't find any > guide. Should fixes be based on stable tree and new features implemented on > top of current Linus' tree? Could you give me some advice on this? Hi Tomasz, You can use "soc_is_s3c64xx()" based on Samsung -next tree. git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kgene/linux-samsung.git for-next In addition, would be better to me if you could work about Samsung stuff based on it. As a note, your previous patches are in there :) If any problems, please let me know... Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim , Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.